In matrimonial disputes, vague and generalized allegations against relatives not residing with the complainant may lead to quashment of FIRs to prevent over-implication.

J U D G M E N T

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

Leave granted.

1. The captioned appeals are directed against the order dated 11.03.2022 in C.R.M.-M. No.42226 of 2021 Signature Not Verified passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Digitally signed by Dr.

Naveen Rawal Date: 2024.11.26

13:43:35 IST Reason:

Chandigarh. The said petition was jointly filed by the appellant in the former appeal and her husband, the second respondent in the latter appeal, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) as petitioner Nos.2 and 1 respectively, seeking quashment of FIR No.0080/2020 dated 03.12.2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 498-A of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) at Police Station, District Police Commissionerate, Women, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. In fact, after the registration of FIR No.0080/2020 at the instance of Subhash Chander Kapila, the second respondent in the former appeal, offences under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC were also added. The appellant in the former appeal is accused No.5 and her husband, the second respondent in the latter appeal, was accused No.6 in the said FIR. The appellant in the latter appeal viz., the second respondent in the former appeal is the complainant. For convenient sake, the parties are therefore, referred to hereafter in this judgment in accordance with their status and rank in the subject FIR and subsequently filed final report, unless otherwise specifically mentioned. In other words, the appellant in the former appeal is described as ‘accused No.5’, her husband who is the second respondent in the latter appeal is referred to as ‘accused No.6’ and the appellant in the latter appeal, who is respondent No.2 in the former appeal is referred to as ‘the complainant’, in this judgment.

2. As per the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2022, the High Court allowed CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 qua accused No.6, the husband of accused No.5 and quashed FIR No.0080 dated 03.12.2020 and all proceedings subsequent thereto qua him and at the same time, dismissed the said petition qua accused No.5, the second petitioner therein. The former appeal is filed by accused No.5 against CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 to the extent it rejected her prayer for quashment of subject FIR and all further proceedings and the latter appeal is filed by the complainant against the quashment of the subject FIR and all further proceedings therefrom qua accused No.6. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.5 and 6 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and also for the complainant.

4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is appropriate to look into the relationship between the parties involved in the matter. The couple involved (now divorced) is the first accused-Amit Sharma and Vandana Sharma, who is the daughter of the complainant. Accused No.6 is the cousin brother of the first accused and as already noted, accused No.5 is his wife.

5. The undisputed and indisputable facts, in succinct, that led to the filing of CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 before the High Court are as under: -

The marriage between the first accused-Amit Sharma and Vandana Sharma was solemnized on 23.02.2019. On 07.03.2019, the first accused-Amit Sharma left for Canada and Vandana Sharma stayed back in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar in Punjab with her in-laws. On 02.12.2019, Vandana Sharma also left for Canada. On 22.09.2020, Amit Sharma approached the Family Court, Canada seeking divorce from his wife Vandana Sharma. The lodgement of the subject FIR No.0080/2020 dated 03.12.2020 by the complainant who is the father of Vandana Sharma, alleging commission of the aforementioned offences under the IPC against all the accused including accused Nos.5 and 6, was later to initiation of the said proceedings. It was in the said circumstances that accused Nos.5 and 6 filed CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 before the High Court raising various grounds, which culminated